The 9%: Women on Wikipedia

Remember the surprisingly unsurprising news from the New York Times way back in January, that fewer than 15% of Wikipedia contributors were women? Then there was the even more depressing report from the Wikimedia Foundation itself, which confirmed that the figure for editors was less than 9%. Well, the new-media researcher Sarah Stierch has just published an unscientific study based on a survey of 329 female and MtF transgender editors, which throws up some pretty interesting results. The size of the sample makes it difficult to read too much into the stats, but there’s some enlightenment and plenty of pause for thought in the comments. Here’s a selection:

* I loved Wikipedia and its community dearly, but I’ve grown tired of its culture — argumentative, rude, often very explicitly sexual in behind-the-scene chats and discussions, and it creates an atmosphere where usually the strongest character with the most stubborn stance gets his/her way in the end.

* I encounter a lot of racism and little is done about it. I simply do not feel welcome.

Asked whether they felt they’d ever been assaulted, attacked or treated poorly by colleagues on projects:

* My areas of interest and expertise are often attacked as uninteresting and trivial, and this has included a threat to AfD any article I write on a particular topic.

* Christ, too many times to list. It’s the way things operate on the Internet. Disagreement means the other person’s an asshole. I’m guilty of it too… Makes me think I should go online with alcohol more often. It’s more amusing that way.

* The civility policy is simply not enforced, in fact looking at ANI on any day will demonstrate the admins themselves violate it, defend their friends who violate it, and in some cases actively state that it is bunkum. This is hypocritical and disconcerting, and goes beyond the specific issue of sexism (which I think is way overblown). I suspect most of the editors who insult me can’t be bothered to consider the possibility I am female; they just consider insults and hostility to be acceptable modes of interaction within the project.

And on off-Wiki attacks:

* I’m a former arbitrator, mediator, administrator, OTRS responder, and umpteen other things. The pattern of women at that level being cyber-stalked off the project is so thorough, and has happened to so many of us…

* At the time I joined WP, there was some rather extensive and vicious harassment directed at women editors (those involved had been banned, but there was no effective means of preventing them from off-wiki harassment). Thus I chose a genderless username and did not publicly state I was female, until several years later when I was running for adminship. (Some people already knew, though.) This issue continues to recur; although much off-wiki harassment is not gender-based, I believe women are much more sensitive to it. We can do a better job of alerting new contributors, including women, about how to respond (or more particularly, not respond) to harassment like this.

Scary stuff, especially when you consider just how important this resource is now. The Wikimedia Foundation has pledged to increase participation on all fronts by 2015, because aside from the gender gap, half of all its editors are under 22, and four out of five come from countries in the Global North. The campaign needs outreach, so spread the word.

Ellie Robins is an editor at Melville House. Previously, she was managing editor of Hesperus Press.

6 Comments

I’m a Wikipedia user from the early days probably among the top 2 or 5 thousand editors by count. I love it, but the problem is systemic. It’s very simple really, Wikipedia is a classic Honor Culture (as opposed to a Rule of Law – look these terms up on Wikipedia for definitions). There is very little law enforcement, you are responsible for your own justice. It’s literally the Wild West, old Scotland, Afghanistan, the Brazilian jungle or anywhere else Honor Cultures rule, and the Rule of Law is secondary. It’s what makes Wikipedia terrible, and great, in equal measure. Think about how women were (and are) treated in historic Honor Cultures.

The other reason there are fewer women.. it’s frankly a boy thing to geek out over encyclopedic knowledge. The male side of the spectrum tends towards Rain Man. Girls geek out on things too, but not as common as boys with intricate detail of obscure things. Similar imbalances in the sciences and engineering for similar reasons.

> … study based on a survey of 329 female and MtF transgender editors …

Distinguishing between trans and cis (i.e., non-trans) women by saying “female and MtF transgender” is a method of invalidating trans women’s gender; it places trans women outside the group of unqualified/”real” women. Moreover, there’s no reason to make the distinction here. Yes, the survey notes that it included trans women—a fact relevant only because trans women are so often excluded when someone purports to study women in general. Here, it’s not at all relevant.

It’s not relevant here because the survey isn’t about trans women or the differences between trans and cis women’s experiences, it’s about women, period. By saying “women”, you’re already saying that the survey included everyone who identifies as female. Mentioning the inclusion of trans women in the methodology (albeit with questionable wording) is, as I said, relevant because trans women are so often not included in studies about women. But mentioning it here, especially in this way, actually excludes trans women.